dcfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:E-Man Vol 1 5
Hold on, there are plenty of pages for issues of Charlton Comics, what's wrong with this one? Tony ingram (talk) 08:27, December 6, 2014 (UTC) : This Charlton comic does not contain any characters that DC later bought. See Caroline Dean (Earth-Four) for more info. Shadzane �� (talk) 07:42, December 9, 2014 (UTC) Oh. what's the use? I might as well not bother. Sooner or later, everything I've put on this site will be deleted for infringing some arcane, intractable rule. Tony ingram (talk) 08:46, December 9, 2014 (UTC) Y'know what? Just for that, "the person arguing against the deletion" has not "given up". I regard this proposed act, like all the deletions of useful information in order to comply with some srbitrary new rules, as petty and mean spirited, and uttterly pointless. What on Earth is the point of a so-called 'database' that limits the amount of information it provides? Tony ingram (talk) :I don't have an opinion on this particular issue but this isn't an issue of mean spirits. We are a database but not a database of everything. If you want there, there is the Database wiki which covers everything.https://alldatabase.wikia.com/wiki/Database_Wiki We think of the site more like a large collection; sometimes it needs curated. Kyletheobald (talk) 15:30, December 9, 2014 (UTC) But comics are a medium where pretty much everything feeds into everything else-a true Database would acknowledge that, as indeed my comic collection does; I don't limi my myself to one publisher, I'd see that as pointless. Comics are a huge, organic, living thing, and your restrictive practices (which were not in place when I joined up) only serve to limit the scope of what could be a genuinely useful research tool. Who cares whether this particular Charlton character was purchased by DC along with all of the others? It's a superhero character who has the same names as two DC characters, who was created at a company whose superhero characters for the most part ended up at DC, by a writer/artist who worked extensively for DC. To me, that makes it of interest, and I suspect it would be of interest to others too. And that, surely, is the primary point of information? Tony ingram (talk) 15:38, December 9, 2014 (UTC) Surely you can reflect back on the number of times you have leapt to the defence of some tangentially related Charlton comic, and understand that this is hardly a new rule? Rules are meant to be intractable. That is why they are rules, and not guidelines. Yes, sooner or later everything you have added will be removed if it infringes on the intractable, though not arcane, rule that information on comics and characters that have never at any time been owned by DC should be removed from the wiki. We do not, and have never agreed with you that we should retain information that contravenes that rule. We will therefore not consider your arguments further, because you have no argument to make that does not amount to "I disagree with your rule. You should do it my way." As such, you have nothing to sway us with. The rule applies to a great many things that were added before data was policed in any way, and the rule was created because unpoliced data tends to creep outside of the scope of this wiki - which is DC owned properties and their licenses. Pre-buyout Charlton does not fall within that scope. Of course, there was no use in writing any of that, because you're just going to be incensed that we intend to delete your contributions, once again. Your unwarranted rage is noted, Tony. Further argument on your part is redundant. - Hatebunny (talk) 00:38, December 10, 2014 (UTC) Translation: "Your views don't count because we make the rules, so shut up and go away". You really don't get the point I keep trying to make at all, do you? And I will decide if my feelings are "unwarranted", thanks, not some anonymous online dictator. Tony ingram (talk) 07:47, December 10, 2014 (UTC)